A Defense of Gene-Centrism

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Given the non-essential nature of evolutionary biology this question really has no uniquely true answer. Consider a similar question: Which is the primary unit in natural selection, the chicken or the egg? This, roughly speaking, is the difference between the organism centrists (the chicken) and the gene centrists (the egg). The former says that eggs (genes) are what chickens use to make more chickens. The latter says that chickens are what eggs use to make more eggs. In this post we will consider the gene-centrist’s primary argument for why their view is the uniquely true one.

Three Questions for War Supporters

Usually I tend to steer clear of political topics on this blog.  I’m not that well informed and I figure I would just make myself look even stupider than I already am.  It is with this in mind that I would like to ask three questions to those who support the war in any form:

1. What, exactly, constitutes “winning” the war in Iraq?
2. At what price (in terms of American/Iraqii lives and money) does winning cease to be worth it?
3. At any given time, who should decide whether continuing the war is still worth the price?

I don’t mean these questions to serve as some sort of substitute for an actual argument, nor do I want to debate the answers to these questions.  I simply want to understand the “other” position a little better.

Relativity in Natural Selection

Does selection operate at the level of genes, gene-complexes, traits, organisms or groups?  In this post I will discuss Waters’ claim, put forth in his article “Tempered Realism About the Force of Selection”, that an explanation at any of these levels is no more uniquely true then are those at any other level.  Each level redefines not only the unit of selection, but the relevant environment as well.  Thus, selection at any of the levels is simply a different way of telling the same story so to speak.  Such a view of selection, however, does require a weaker form of realism as to selective forces.

The Units of Selection Debate

This post will be the first is a short series dedicated to the units of selection debate in evolutionary biology.  In this post I will recount the history of the debate including the major trend setters and the arguments which they presented for their own ideas concerning the level at which natural selection acts.  This will set the stage for later posts in which I will present my own positions on this as well as other related matters in biology and evolution.

Mr. Deity

There seems to be a new series of videos released on YouTube called Mr. Deity. The four vids which they have released so far are all well worth watching. Sure, they are more than a little sac religious, but they do so in a pretty playful and non-confrontational manner.

The Trilemma

I’m a big fan of the blog Dangerous Idea.  Whether it is in spite of or because of my disagreement with Vic on almost every issue he posts about, I just love to read whatever it is that he has to say.  Recently, he posted on C. S. Lewis’ trilemma argument for the divinity of Christ and Richard Dawkins’ rebuttal to it.  (Interestingly enough, my Dad sent me a copy of the argument quite independently about a week later.)  While I think Vic brought up some good points regarding Dawkins’ arm chair speculations on the matter, I simply must put forth my own reasons for thinking the trilemma argument to be largely, if not entirely bogus.

Parsimony and Biology

Parsimony is not identical with mere simplicity and attempts to establish such an equation usually end up poorly.  In this post I will illustrate how parsimony functions as a rule which effectively establishes priority in scientific explanations.  In order to do this, I will use the examples of competing hypotheses for biological design and the level at which natural selection operates.  While parsimony plays a near parallel role in these two debates, I will also explore a small but significant difference between the two cases.

Justification for Belief vs. Justification for Believing

As to knowledge, I am a strong internalist.  I simply see no reason to hold that one man can have knowledge while another man who is justified in his belief in the exact same way and to the exact same degree does not.  Furthermore, I don’t see what difference the distinction between knowledge and “apparent knowledge”, as the externalists call it, could amount to in practice.  The distinction only seems to serve the purpose of preserving our intuitions concerning the objectivity of knowledge by providing a label which we can apply ad hoc to any cases which do not align with such intuitions.  My opinions regarding the debate between externalism and internalism as it applies to justification are not nearly as strong.  In this post I will lay some ground work for a latter exploration in this matter.

The Multiple Drafts Model of Conscousness

The first philosophy book which I ever read was Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, although I now admit that it is not all that heavy on the philosophy per se.  (The parts I understood weren’t anyways.)  The second philosophy book which I read was Dennett’s Consciousness Explained.  I understood absolutely nothing in it and came away only with the vague recollection that Descartes’ account of the mind had somehow been completely refuted.  Having recently reread much of this book, however, I am now prepared to comment on it a bit.

A Place for ID in the Schools

That Intelligent Design is a modified form of creationism is really beyond any reasonable doubt.  The motivation behind the idea as well as the very content of the theory has unquestionable ties to religious belief.  This fact alone, it will be argued, is not reason enough to keep some form of ID out of science altogether.  There are, however, other sufficient reasons for excluding any form of ID from the public pre-collegiate school system.